Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Jamiatul Ahlia Darul Ulum Moinul Islam

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jamiatul Ahlia Darul Ulum Moinul Islam[edit]

Al-Jamiatul Ahlia Darul Ulum Moinul Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD tag removed by author. Fails wp:ORG and wp:NOR, no 3rd party references that discuss the subject. I also nominate the following similar article:

Al-Jamiah Al-Islamiah , Patiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Maashatra11 (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamiah, Ziri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) included by Athaenara ✉ 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not really an affiliated university (with the university grants commission of Bangladesh). --Ragib (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: At current writeup, the article makes a lot of false claims. Please see below for my refs that the institution exists in reality. I'm voting weak delete based on the current writeup, which makes a lot of false claims. If the article is stubbified and rewritten with proper refs, I will reconsider my position.--Ragib (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the new reference on the subject being the "largest and oldest" Deobandi madrassah in Bangladesh (see my comment with citation below). --Ragib (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article author is utterly clueless about the deletion process. So, his blanking of the page is probably not a request for deletion. --Ragib (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamiah Ziri created by same author since then. – Athaenara ✉ 07:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, he seriously doesn't seem to be conscious of the way Wikipedia works... Anyway, can this article be bundled here, in your opinion? Maashatra11 (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iagree he did not intent to have it deleted, so I restored it. Add it if you like, but see my keep opinion below. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moves were reverted and article author warned. Maashatra11 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A long-established institution of higher education, as are the other two mentioned. Whether or not it is in the same tradition as European institutions is irrelevant -- nd its relation to the Bangladesh UGC is similarly quite besides the point. Does the ed. bringing this AfD wish to imply that the information in these articles is false? Or does he wish to say that if the information is true, yet the organizations are not notable? Is that because he thinks they are not actually existing bona fide institutions of higher education, or because he thinks that only those that follow the familiar Euroamerican tradition are notable? Has he searched sources in the appropriate languages and not found a discussion of them? (Myself, I lack the knowledge to help here.) Deleting thse would seem clear examples of cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles may include claims of notability, but unless the articles include reliable sources, I'm prone to believe they are hoaxes. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have consistently accepted both high schools and colleges and similar level institutions notable as long as they can show real existence, because there has never been a cvase where sources cannot be found. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the claims in the article is completely false. All universities in Bangladesh (both state-owned and private) need to be affiliated with the University Grants Commission to be legal as a university. This one is NOT affiliated with UGC. This is, at best, a madrassah. And even in Bangladesh, this is hardly known as a institution of higher education. (PS: The interwiki link points to a non-existent article in Bengali wiki, we don't have any on it there). --Ragib (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how whether it is legally recognized or not makes the least difference. If a claim in the article is in error, fix it. Ragib, why is a substantial Madrassah not notable as an institute of higher education or at least a high school? This is exactly what I mean in terms of cultural bias. Perhaps you can help finding a decent reference. Or are you truly saying that it does not actually exist? DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, You said "we can accept...as long as they can show real existence"? What do you mean? May I ask where was the real existence of this institution shown? Maashatra11 (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, my delete vote was based on the false claims made in the article (of being a university, which is not correct). As I have replied in my talk page, the institution is real, and apparently it is important at least on regional basis given some news references (see below). I did not imply that a madrassah won't be notable when a high school would be, just that the current content of the article makes some claims that are not correct at all.
  • Delete - without any verifiable reliable sources, we would not keep articles for institutions and individuals "that follow the familiar Euroamerican tradition" either. Per Ragib, the claims of UGC affiliation and of a similar article in the Bengali Wikipedia are outright falsehoods, so how can we possibly trust the person posting them?   — Jeff G.  ツ 07:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: The madrassah is real. It is also probably notable, at least regionally. I did a quick search in Bengali using the madrassah's common name (হাটহাজারী মাদ্রাসা "Hathazari Madrassah"), which shows some recent media mentions:
    • সক্রিয় হিযবুত তাহ্রীর এবং উগ্র ইসলামী সংগঠনগুলো (Hizbul Tahrir and extremist Islamist parties have become active): A news item from a weekly newspaper: Mentions this: "বর্তমানে হাটহাজারীর দারুল উলম মইনুল ইসলাম মাদ্রাসা বা বড় মাদ্রাসায় প্রায় সাত হাজার ছাত্র পড়াশোনা করছে। এর নিয়ন্ত্রণে আছে চট্টগ্রামের আরো কয়েকশ কওমী মাদ্রাসা। " (Right now, Hathazari Darul Ulum Moinul Islam Madrassah or Boro Madrassah has about 7,000 students. It controls several hundred Quomi madrassahs in Chittagong).
Hope this helps. Try searching with the madrassah's common name "Hathazari Madrassah" (use spelling variation of "madrassah"). --Ragib (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the photos used in the article from commons are all from the Madrassah's website. Not sure at all if article creator/photo uploader owns rights to them at all. --Ragib (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ragib, is it possible to completely rewrite the three articles (might be stubs) and base them on the sources you found and not on wp:OR? Maashatra11 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked these other ones, but for this one, the links above show that it exists and is at least given importance by some political leaders. Doesn't establish its notability through just that, but shows it exists. I won't have time till tomorrow to write the stubs, but probably stubbing with only information that can be verified is a good idea. In the mean time, if you want to stub it with only ref'd info, please go ahead. Please search Google, Scholar, and Books with the variations ("Hathazari Madrassah", "Hathazari madrasa" , "Boro Madrassah"etc.). Here are few hits from Google Books. I can't see the last result, but it apparently states this one to be the "largest of " some type of Madrassahs. --Ragib (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this probably is a scholarly article written on this madrasa, though can't read the entire paper. --Ragib (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be notable after looking at the arguments and references.Biophys (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification there are no references in the article itself, and it's still not clear if they indicate that this institution is notable. Rajib simply found them after DGG's appeal to him. ThanksMaashatra11 (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re. This is not a good way to prove your point. Please self-revert. Such things should be avoided during deletion discussions to allow other people to look at the original text.Biophys (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no problem. Revert because the AfD discussion is still in its course. But if closed as keep I will revert back because all the material is unsourced.Maashatra11 (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it ends in Keep, I would hope you have enough sense to know that means keep the article, not delete most of it. If you sincerely doubt information, then put a [citation needed] citation needed tag on. Dream Focus 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per DGG's well-reasoned rationale.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those articles currently fail WP:V, as there are currently no adequate sources in them. If someone can add sources and base the content of the articles on them, please be my guest. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to fix it. Don't confuse the lack of refs in an article (which is fertile ground for you to exercise SOFIXIT yourself), with reason to AfD an article. An article will not under wp policy be AfD's just because it lacks refs, other than in the case of certain BLPs. Nor is that reason to delete it. The charge under wp:before is for you to look for the refs -- not just in the article, but on the internet, for example.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I managed to access the scholarly article I mentioned above. The article is: Kabir, Humayun 'Replicating the Deobandi model of Islamic schooling: the case of a Quomi madrasa in a district town of Bangladesh', Contemporary South Asia, 17:4, 415 - 428. The specific quote about the Madrassa is: "Another Deobandi alim, Allama Ahmad Shafi, who is much revered for officiating as director of the country's largest and probably oldest Deobandi madrasa, popularly known as Hathazari Madrasa (founded in 1901), located in the port city of Chittagong, was also vocal in his opposition". So, I think this is a good reference showing the notability of the madrasa. Accordingly, I'm changing my weak delete to keep. --Ragib (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice work. However, the articles are currently entirely WP:OR and unsourced. From the moment I will see any progress towards reaching a verifiable state, I will propbably reconsider my nomination and withdraw. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm --- Maas, why would you say it is OR and unsourced? Ragib just provided you with a source.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the articleMaashatra11 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a requirement that the source be in the article for purposes of AfD review. Just that they exist. --Epeefleche (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I guess they should be added to the article then? Maashatra11 (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should feel free to. Under SOFIXIT. Similarly, any other editor should feel free to. The point is that in !voting at an AfD, we !vote the same way if the material exists but has not been added to the article, as we would !vote if it were already added to the article. Adding refs is always a good thing, but it is a matter separate from the AfD decision.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epee, you always say the right things, but an article has to be Based on those sources. That's what WP:V says. So you can tell me a hundred times : "So fix it" I can't. I can't access those sources and I don't understand Bangla. I hoped Ragib would do it but I can't see any serious improvements since the nomination. That's why I made an appeal to him and I hope he will improve the article and base it on the sources in the future. Maashatra11 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are disagreeing with my above statement, perhaps one of the other seasoned editors can weigh in (DGG, for example, if he is watching). I stand by what I said.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While we've been discussing the article, the creator of the article first tried to blank the AFD tag (by his account, and via some IPs). Failing this, he then created a POV fork of the page and tried to tag this article with CSD delete on user request. I reverted it once, but he tagged it again. I am surprised to see that the article has been summarily speedied by Fastily (talk · contribs). Since other users are editing the article, "only editor requests deletion" is not a valid speedy reason. The deleting admin should have been careful. Also, the creator of this page is simply gaming the system by creating pov forks with same content (but with his linkspam and sans the AFD tag )and deleting this one. --Ragib (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily has restored the article as of now. However, I want to put it on record that the article creator is simply gaming the system (he vowed to behave upon which he was unblocked). --Ragib (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But what about the sources? Will they ever be added? Ragib, you are the only one here who understands the Bangla language, very unfortunately... Maashatra11 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added a few references. I will try to add others. But anyway, that's an article content issue, not a notability issue, right? I won't have time till the weekend to add more references. --Ragib (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Is the RIGHT title of the schools mentioned in any of those sources? Shouldn't it be Hathazari Madrassah? Maashatra11 (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a request, not an instruction. The instruction appears in the example in the instructions. The instructions also contain a request ("Please ..."). Are you writing your note as a member of the ARS? If that's the case, I expect it is a situation of res ipsa loquitur. You can focus on what the ARS focuses on mainly: supplying references in the AfD, improving the article's writing, adding information not readily available, and cleaning up. Thanks for your contributions as a member of the ARS--you people do fine work.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I see a couple of references, and I'm convinced it's not a hoax. No prejudice against renominating. But at this point I think it's better to give this article a bit more time to improve. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep finding plenty of sources for Hathazari Madrasa. Considering the name Al-Jamiatul Ahlia Darul Ulum Moinul Islam, it's no wonder most sources opt for the shorter version. I made a redirect of Hathazari Madrasa to point to this article. —CodeHydro 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is it o.k. if I move this article to Hathazari Madrassah? I think the transliteration in Bangla isn't plausible. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question (this, and above), "Al-Jamiatul Ahlia Darul Ulum Moinul Islam" is the full official name of the institution. It is often referred to as the Hathazari Madrassah based on the fact that it is located at Hathazari. It might be better to keep it located at the current official name, rather than the unofficial name. --Ragib (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: According to madrasah, that word is variously transliterated as madarasaa, medresa, madrassa, madraza, madarsa, medrese etc. This Google search should cover all the bases if anybody wants sources ;) Also, made the above a redirect —CodeHydro 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on information found by those who bothered to look for it. Dream Focus 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al-Jamiatul_Ahlia_Darul_Ulum_Moinul_Islam&oldid=1144278214"